Longitudinal Study of Emotional Intelligence, Leadership, and Caring in Undergraduate Nursing Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study describes the development of emotional intelligence (EI), leadership, and caring in undergraduate nursing students throughout their educational program. A correlational, repeated measures study design was used. Fifty-two nursing students completed four self-report questionnaires on three occasions (T1, T2, T3): BarOn Emotional Quotient Inventory: Short (EQ-i:S), Self-Assessment Leadership Instrument (SALI), Caring Ability Inventory (CAI), and Caring Dimensions Inventory (CDI). Mean scores for Total EI did not change significantly over time (T1, 100.1 ± 13.8; T2, 103.1 ± 13.8; T3, 101.6 ± 14.7). However, EI adaptability was higher at T2 (101.6 ± 13.1) and T3 (101.8 ± 14.1) than at T1 (97.0 ± 12.5; p = 0.03), as was CAI Courage (64.2 ± 9.5, 66.7 ± 9.5, 66.9 ± 8.7; p = 0.04) and the CDI (96.8 ± 18.1, 103.0 ± 7.3, 102.0 ± 10.9; p = 0.02). Changes in EI were positively correlated (r > 0.50, p < 0.001) with changes in SALI, CAI Knowing, and CAI Courage. During the undergraduate program, significant increases occurred in caring and EI adaptability but not in overall EI or leadership.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".